9 ms·

If the labels describe an interesting pattern then we shouldn’t fear them.

• js8 8y ago
  I disagree. Mainly because I don't think patterns based on someone gender are very interesting, I think they lead to bias and ultimately divide people. Again, consider how it would look like if the pattern was based on race. We simply don't want to pattern people like that. You can judge by behavior, but you shouldn't judge by gender.
  • orasis 8y ago
    I think feminine & masculine, yin & yang are extremely fascinating and practically useful. When I run into a problem where the yang approach isn’t working I try switching to yin. Meditation & psychedelics have me utterly convinced that yin & yang, chaos & order are fundamental to conscious experience. But, who knows.
• smhost 8y ago
  the formula for small "c" conservative language-policing among post-critical folk seems to be: 1) identify a criticism of some traditional power structure (masculinity) 2) hijack the critical language and turn it on itself into a contradiction (anti-sexism is itself sexist) it's the same formula for everything from "atheism is itself a religion" to "anti-racism is racism against white people". to me it just seems like a very childish defense mechanism, like if nobody is allowed to talk about the problem then the problem will just go away.
  • js8 8y ago
    This is a big misunderstanding. You can criticize power structures in gender-neutral way. You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". You can talk about "movement for gender equality" instead of "feminism". You can talk about "being asshole" or "taking too much risks" or other trait instead of "toxic masculinity". I actually agree with the feminist critique (for the most part), I think where they are wrong is putting people into gender boxes. And I don't think other movements for equality (for example, movements for racial and sexual equality) do this to such extent.
    • smhost 8y ago
      the point is that our history is gendered. i mean, the history of western thought is almost entirely white and male. if i want to take politics seriously, i immediately come into contact with the patriarchy because we all live in the shadow of great white men. i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language.
      • js8 8y ago
        "i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language" I do see why it shouldn't (unless you are historian, perhaps). If we are to move, as a society, beyond the discrimination of the past, we need to drop the divisive language, too. It is why I think even the term "feminism" should be dropped and replaced with "gender equality movement" (perhaps in somewhat shorter, witty form). I think, in general, to structure equality movements around specific identity makes sense in the beginning. But when the movement gains large enough support from society, it will become counter-productive, because it emphasizes the difference rather than sameness. (And I suspect for this very reason, many people, even women, support feminism but are avoiding the label itself.)
        • smhost 8y ago
          if you're truly worried that language has the power to reproduce past injustices, you should be trying to part with the language of the oppressor, not the language of the oppressed
          • js8 8y ago
            I want to part with the language that's unjust, regardless of who used it in the past. There is a historical precedent, although it's kinda cliche. When communists came to power, former intelligentsia and bourgeoisie was often replaced by people from the former working class, and the people from the former were even persecuted. They even called it "classless society". And it didn't work very well. It was an attempt to rectify those past injustices, without consideration what is just here and now. So no, we shouldn't mindlessly take norms of the oppressed. So at some point, there needs to be a line drawn, and said, the injustice is in the past, and from now, hopefully, there will be justice. And at that point, you need to stop referring to past injustices as a justification for anything.
  • leereeves 8y ago
    When you start arguing that it's ok to discriminate against or insult people because of what different people in the past have done, you have indeed become what you hate. We can't change history. We can't fix past injustices with new injustices in the present; that's just creating new injustices and new divisions. The best we can do is treat each other well from this point forward.
    • smhost 8y ago
      the APA isn't "arguing that it's ok to discriminate against or insult people because of what different people in the past have done" it's trying to rectify e.g. the fact that psychological norms were previously based on the psychology of well-functioning white men. until very recently, nobody thought of this as being biased. it's only with the introduction of feminist thought and feminist language into this sphere that these biases were made apparent.
      • leereeves 8y ago
        > norms were previously based on the psychology of well-functioning white men. And now they've gone to the other extreme, declaring those same norms "harmful". I'm fine with confronting biases and accepting a wide range of behavior, but I wonder why the APA is embracing intolerance.
        • smhost 8y ago
          it's not "the other extreme." it's just a more objective view. it's just true that traditional masculine norms leads to circumstances where: > boys are disproportionately represented among schoolchildren with learning difficulties (e.g., lower standardized test scores) and behavior problems (e.g., bullying, school suspensions, aggression). Likewise, men are overrepresented in prisons, are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and are at greatest risk of being a victim of violent crime
          • leereeves 8y ago